Figured I'd take a minute to respond to one of your earlier responses HouseEl. Sorry if you thought it thought it not worth my time, I only get a few days off.
Doesn't matter about how many Kryptonian invasion fleet caliber opponents he faced, facts are when in a situation where there was others in danger of being caught up in his battle with another dangerous foe he ensured the battle commenced elsewhere. Smallville is a very flawed show with their Superman being very flawed but at least he had the good sense to consider casualties before engaging Super powered foe.
Briefly, on the issue of if Smallville ever conveyed him not moving fights away form innocents, it’s guilty. For example, See him fighting Bizarro in the local dam with massive damage enacted (dams are staffed 24/7), and with luthors running around(as they always are).
As for Red K, he willingly put it on kept it on for weeks, once or twenty times matters little, if you stop and take in the full implications of that action, not knowing when the ring would ever come off, not knowing whom he would kill or impregnate or worse, the selfish nature of the act…I didn’t seen anything of that sort in MoS. I enjoyed smallville to a point but my rose tinted glasses are broken.
Lastly, opponent does matter.
Or do you think superman actually wanted to fight doomsday in a populated city in the source material. If he is faced with something beyond his control, things will play out logically. Ergo the question is clear, how many kryptonian invasion fleet caliber situations did he face in a populated area during the Smallville series. If the answer if plenty and every time he successfully moved the fight elsewhere, then you will have made the point; if the answer is none then you will not have made a different point.
Except Batman wasn't bred solely to fulfill one role, also JorEl wasn't a warrior but a scientist....
And this is where my point is made. At what moment during this film are you told that jor el is bred “solely to fulfill the one role of scientist”? I can tell you the point in the film where I'm shown clearly that, that simply isn't true, but I'm asking when it's clearly stated that he was bred for the sole role of scientist? I can see how you would think that due to implication but the words “solely to be a scientist” are never stated.
You insist on calling bs on your own premise. One could argue that it's implied but if you are going to call plot hole of contradiction in nature, you need more than what you derive from implications imo.
When what is shown and stated contradict one another what is the audience to do but to question this huge contradiction.
They are welcome to question all sorts of things; they are also welcomed to find the answers. I see no contradiction; only misunderstanding. Jor el explains in brief that people have their roles chosen for them; he didn’t get into the specifics, he kept it general, as that’s all the script required. How literal you take this conversation is on you, for example:
“In the animal kingdom, there are animals that fit into the role of hunter, and others into the role of prey, a fox for example, is a hunter.” Observe I am making the point on the order of things and why it’s necessary in an animal eco system. When I later see a fox being eaten by a bear, I won’t sit here and call plot hole contraction based on the fact that I was implicitly told that fox is a hunter in a greater conversation. The point of my exposition was that the system has and needs hunters and prey; the reality that I’m later shown is that the
fox happens to be both. But why wasn’t I told about the duality of the fox’s placement? Because the point of the exposition was that the system has hunters and prey, the finer workings are another discussion, perhaps relegated to a less efficient script. “People on krypton are born into roles!” What is the point of this exposition? And what point to the story would be served if jor el explained that some people’s roles entail this, that and the next thing... It’s a role, people are born into them. Jor El wants to make it clear that he hates that basic fact, Period.
As for the film contradicting itself by having jor el start to make choices of his own. Last time I checked, the premise of Jor El’s conviction was “what if a child choose his own path” in spite of societal litigation. Not what if a child wanted to choose whether to turn left or right at a stop sign, jor can clearly do this and more. All Jor’s choices aside, he is still a victim of the perversion in his eyes. His son, however is not, what his son will grow to be is left utterly to chance; jor couldn’t even begin to guess and that’s the point, betcha you could have called jors occupation at the age of 3 weeks. On principle this is of the utmost significance. What if a child didn’t have his genes spliced and tempered or played with but was something completely natural and his destiny was left up to chance. Jor specifically said “chance” on top of choice, reinforcing that Krypton’s problems isn’t a matter of freewill incarnate but freedom to be who/what you want.
In conclusion, just because jor can be a warrior scientist doesn’t change or contradict the greater issue of perverted societal based genetics. It just adds a layer of complexity. Rather, sometimes the jocks can be book smart and geeks the opposite. The issue of high school clic mentality is still very much present and a worthy conflict to a social idealist. I for one commend the producers of this film for adding a greater complexity to the issue of why jor sent his son away, beyond the planet was exploding(and the ship too small for his wife).
